Thought and logic are inherent in intellectual understanding. Logic can, by argument, be applied to extract facts and fiction. Facts alone cannot be used to prove the validity of matters beyond it's borders. The casual use of facts in many circumstances is delusional, if not purposefully devious. In such cases fiction may prove to hold more value.

The purpose of the above argument is that so often facts are used in arguments as if they are being used as part of an analysis to show some 'great or important' understanding. Whereas the facts as presented are only relevant to their limited derivation and are all but fiction when used otherwise. Even billions of facts, derived from myopic reductionist data, will not shed a light on immortal questions which require a holistic understanding.

The point is that the uncorrected use of miss-placed facts really only shows the weakness of the argument and it's proponents need to muddle on to spur on their frail momentum. This arises from a lack of analytical thought of all too easily assimilated data, when a need for holistic satisfaction is sought. The result is an excuse, in the use of facts, to consider an understanding has been gained and the problem at least partially addressed.

This is easily seen when facts are used to support holistic goals.

I am going to use the details as expounded in the post 'Water Footprint:' by a journalist, Should the original entry become unavailable, I am providing a copy the text.

The facts used are examples of the division of space, as in the various resources as 'water' and the need and understanding of how to exploit resources sustainably, through time indefinitely.

In the following commentary I will variously show a) the facts are trivial and therefore irrelevant to the solution. b) that there are more impressive facts, that if considered would also be trivial and c) that the argument is one of the longevity of decay.

If you have any doubts about the value of the 'Water Footprint:' article, read the next page (page 2)

Pages: 1· 2